Can someone explain to me why Steiner uses the 'horse and rotating disc' analogy when discussing the 'physiological subjectivity of our percepts'?

In the movie, The Matrix, the character ‘Neo’ wakes up to a world that is much different from the one he formerly knew. Prior to his awakening the world seemed to consist of individuals going about their daily lives – working, playing, and ‘paying their taxes’ in a manner essentially identical to the world that we live in. Now, after having been ‘woken up’ by the character Morpheus, Neo sees that what he formerly thought about reality has turned out to be a complete lie – an illusion foisted upon him by an inhuman race of beings (the machines) for there own ends.

Interested in any comments on this page or site.  At first I was very skeptical, but what she says has a certain ring of truth to it.  Very balanced, and she even references POF...

I had never heard of this Brunnen von Christus group.  Apparently they are a group of anthroposophists who claim to have contact with the entelechy of Rudolf Steiner - whom they refer to as above.

Is this group known by others?  I guess I'm not as much of an anthropop as I thought I was...

http://tcpubs.com/brunnen/steiner_returns/questions.html

In the new Steinerbooks catalogue there is a listing for Sergie Prokofief's book on the Philosophy of Freedom.

Has anyone read this book?

Comments?

"From my 'The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity' you will know that the highest ethical ideas required by us as human beings are given to us when we grasp moral intuitions, and that when we begin to gain possession of these ethical ideas, they are the foundation of our human freedom. On the other hand, you may perhaps also know that for certain thinkers there has always been a kind of abyss between that which is given, on the one hand, by the knowledge of Nature, and on the other hand, by ethical knowledge. The philosophy of Kant is based upon this abyss, which he is unable to bridge completely. For this reason, Kant has written a Critique of Theoretical Reason, of Pure Reason, as he calls it, where he grapples with natural science, and where he says all that he has to say about natural science, or the knowledge of Nature. On the other hand, he has also written a Critique of Practical Reason, where he speaks of ethical ideas. We might say: The whole human life is born for him out of two roots which are completely severed from one another, which he describes in his two chief critical studies."

Rudolf Steiner - Fundamentals of the Science of Initiation - October 17, 1919

Strange but true - the most important anthroposophical work is a book that Steiner never wrote.

What is it?

Rudolf Steiner on his book The Philosophy of Freedom by Otto Palmer.

Why?  Because this book lights a fire under any anthropop's pants to actually read Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom.  And actually reading the Philosophy of Freedom is the most important thing any anthroposophist can do.  Why?  Because it contains all basic anthroposophical truths in seed form - a form that can actually be perceived by the reader in an absolutely real sense. 

And so when the POF trained anthropop reads a Steiner lecture, the experience of the lecture harkens back to some point in POF that the anthropop has had some actual real experience of, and so when the anthropop talks about the lecture, he or she is not merely presenting dead concepts (Joel Wendt's perceptless concepts) but is actually presenting something that he or she has had some real experience of (even if on a lower level).  This will give a weight to what the person says that simply will not be there without the experience of the Philosophy.

So go ahead - I dare you to read Palmer's book and then NOT feel the itch to pick up the Philosophy of Freedom and start reading it.

Rudolf Steiner on his book The Philosophy of Freedom by Otto Palmer. (buy here).

Materialists (those who believe that all that really exists is matter, and our consciousness is just an epi-phenomenon, something that arised out of the processes of matter, like sparks where flint and steel are struck together) get somewhat of a bad rap in the anthroposophical community. 

I have spent my own time privately ranting against 'those materialists' - and not just the philosophical ones.  The ones who are 'materialistic' in the more colloquial sense of the term.  The people who place all their value in how much 'stuff' they have.  These are the ones who cause all the problems in the world - or so we would like to think.

But why are people materialists?  Why do they love matter (ie - stuff) so much?

From Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom we learn (or more accurately, can rethink ourselves) the fact that the entire world is spirit, that is - it is permeated by thought processes.  This of course includes the material-sense perceptible world.

So we ask again - why are some people materialits?

Quite simply put, because the only place they find the spirit (albeit unconsciously) is in matter.

So next time you meet or read about a materialist, take it easy on them - they love the spirit as well, they just don't realize it.

Is it possible for someone to subconsciously sacrifice oneself?

I have a friend who once told me a story. He, for his own reasons, had become embroiled in a family's bitter trauma. As it happened, there was a married father of young (toddler) twins who had become involved in an extra-marital affair which involved multiple late night comings and goings. During one of these 'goings' in the middle of the night to visit his paramour, one of the young twins followed the father into the garage without the father knowing it. The father then unknowingly backed over the toddler, causing massive brain trauma.

The father immediately discovered this and of course called an ambulance, and woke up the family. The child was taken to the hospital, but could not be revived. By this time, the entire extended family had arrived at the hospital, with considerable animosity toward the father. It seems that the entire family knew about the affair, but the father had never been confronted about it, until now. This is where my friend, for reasons that are not important, became involved with the situation. He told me that he remembered walking into the waiting room of the hospital and seeing the entire family sitting on one side, and the father sitting by himself on the other. The family was virtually hysterical, yelling epithets at the father. My friend then told me that he 'had the perception' that the dead toddler had sacrificed himself for the sake of his brother. For through his death, he would bring about a halt to the broken relationship between the mother and father, and now with this crisis and divorce that would ultimately ensue, had brought about an end to what would have been an incredibly dysfunctional childhood.

Of course, when I say that the toddler sacrificed himself, I don’t mean that the toddler had the conscious mental operation ‘I am going to put an end to this dysfunctional family relationship so my brother can grow up in a better home’. I mean that the so-called Higher Self of the toddler, working in the depths of the toddler’s unconscious will, brought this situation about.

Could something similar be the true in the case of Heath Ledger?
Let’s examine the facts. Heath Ledger died shortly after finishing the film Dark Knight. On the set of his next production he was witnessed walking around muttering ‘I can’t sleep’. (Probably he was saying, “I can’t bloody sleep” but that’s beside the point). Heath Ledger died shortly thereafter from an overdose of sleeping pills that was likely unintentional (in the sense that we normally use the term).Read More....